On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:53:06AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: > OK, so you admit that the advertising clause conflicts with the > GPL. Well, that's very interesting, b/c the Apache license (see > http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt, clause 3) includes this provision, > as well as several others (clauses 4 and 5) that are inconsistent with > the GPL. Now, Apache links with libc, and under your reading of the > GPL, Debian must distribute libc under the GPL rather than the LGPL > (as (1) you read Sections 3(a) and 2(b) of the GPL to require the > "entire Program" to be licensed under the GPL, (2) you link libc with > actually GPL'd programs, such s 'grep', and (3) you provide only one > acopy of libc which can be either LGPL or GPL, but not both). Hence > Apache links to a GPL'd work. Nevertheless, Debian distributes Apache > (see http://www.debian.org/Packages/stable/web/).
Since the associateion between apache and grep is mere aggregation, I don't see how this is relevant. > Incidentally, Perl > (http://www.debian.org/Packages/stable/interpreters/) has the same > problem as Apache. Have a look at clause 9 of the Artistic License > (http://www.perl.com/language/misc/Artistic.html). Perl can already be distributed under the GPL. > What's even more interesting is that FSF > distributes BSD-licensed code as part of libc. See > http://www.gnu.org/manual/glibc-2.0.6/html_node/libc_524.html. The > notable part about that is, this code retains the advertising clause. > It also contains DEC-licensed code, which not only includes an > advertising clause, but, also specifies that its license applies to > all redistributions (and hence the code cannot be distributed under > GPL or LGPL). Well, I've filed a bug report against Debian's libc6 on this issue. I suspect that the issue has been ignored because the advertising clause is considered unenforceable. > Moreover, having looked at your libc license > (http://cgi.debian.org/cgi-bin/get-copyright?package=libc6), Debian > has not in fact converted libc to GPL, and Debian appears to > distribute only one copy of libc, so I guess all Debian's GPL programs > that link to it are in violation of the GPL (under your reading of > Sections 3(a) and 2(b)). If the advertising clause is legally relevant, yes. > When will I see Debian start distributing a separate libc/libgdbm > that is in fact licensed under the LGPL and to which only non-GPL > programs link, since under Debian's reading GPL works cannot link to > LGPL libraries? I'll see what the response is to my bug report before tackling this issue. > Ohhh, but darn it, even that won't work. Debian's libc > includes libio, and libio is licensed under the GPL (see > http://cgi.debian.org/cgi-bin/get-copyright?package=libc6) (I note > that the exception in the libio license, which says the executable is > not governed by the GPL, does not apply to the source code, and your > reading of Sections 3(a) and 2(b) apply to the source code). I think that exception is clear enough about what it means. > Oh well, I guess Debian can't distribute Apache or Perl unless you > remove libio from your libc :-(. Again, this isn't even an issue if the advertising clause is not legally relevant. > Interestingly enough, it looks like Debian somehow thinks it can > distribute libc linked to libio, even though one is (apparently) under > the LGPL, and libio is licensed under the GPL, and they are a single > work (no dynamic linking issues come up). libio is GPL + an exception, not just plain GPL. > I found all these problems just looking at your packages for a few > minutes. How many could I find if I looked at all your packages? If > you promise to make changes to comply with your own reading of the > GPL, I will be happy to perform this service for you (of course, there > will not be a working Debian distribution left afterwards . . . .). If you find copyright bugs, I'll be happy to file bug reports. I've already filed one on the advertising clause issue -- and I'm not completely confident that that bug report isn't bogus. So I'll not be filing any more on that issue until I find out more. But if you find any other sorts of copyright bugs I'll be grateful. > The more you look at reality, the more absurd your interpretation that > Section 2(b) requires licensing all source code under the GPL. Nobody, > not even the FSF or Debian, does this. Like I said: if you find any problems, I'll file bug reports. -- Raul
